[homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

[Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]>]

>> Do you mean, (1) how is a DNS resolver advertised to clients, or
>> (2) how clients are registered in DNS ?
>> 
>> (1) is done by using the -N flag on the router advertising an external
>> connection (-E).  This flag can be repeated multiple times.

> hnetd grabs this automatically from wan-facing DHCP client,

Yep.  Shncpd might learn to act as a DHCPv4 and DHCPv6-PD client at some
point.  (But first implement IPv4 edge router election, which is one of
the three missing features that I feel are necessary, security aside.)

>> (2) is a host issue, so I believe it is better handled outside of shncpd,
>> but I'm quite willing to be convinced otherwise.  (The obvious alternative
>> would be to have shncpd update DNS when it gives out a DHCP lease, but
>> that would mean giving up on stateless autoconf.)

> Well, DHCPv4 is stateful anyway, and you could in theory bind state from
> there as well (at least if you do IPv4).

Yes.  I'm not sure how shncpd should update the state, though, since it
doesn't act as a DNS resolver, it only passes the address of an existing
DNS resolver to clients, and I don't want to bind it to any specific
implementation of a DNS resolver.

>> Markus, Steven, Ted?  What's the plan here?  Do we count on mDNS proxying,
>> or should we be advertising an RFC 2136 server over HNCP?

> I think the plan varies ;-)

Yeah, that's what I gathered.

> hnetd (and current HNCP + my expired autoconf draft) are based on the
> idea of using mDNS _and/or stateful DHCPv4 and/or stateful DHCPv6 to
> determine what’s on each link,

Quoting Stephen:

   I agree with you as well, initially odhcpd did only do RAs and
   stateless DHCPv6 however the user community liked their stateful
   (v4isms) all too much so I had to give in. ;)

   -- https://github.com/sbyx/odhcpd/issues/55

> Ted’s draft proposes either learn-from-mDNS (=proxy DNS-update) and/or
> (manually/automatically configured client-sourced) DNS-update
> scheme. I am worried about zone merging + conflict resolution, although
> if it works out it sounds like a good solution.

> (Zone merging + plain hybrid proxy is at least very problematic, if you
> want hybrid proxies to remain stateless. I have looked at it and it is
> neither pretty nor efficient.)

I haven't looked at it, but my instinct would be to agree with you --
proxying in the presence of merging sounds like a can of worms that we
don't want to open.

Do any of the Wise People on this list have opinions about RFC 2136?

-- Juliusz